http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:16:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-15099 cyber Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:19:16 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-15099 Very well written. Additionally, the prurient interest is key for defining a user's intent. There are psychosexual exams which can show a well-defined prurient interest. This can help in clarifying whether or not a person would even have an interest in downloading the materials vs. being a victim. Additionally, there is the constitutional protection set forth by our founding fathers known as the freedom of thought. to assume a person has said porn in their personal collection and what they 'intend' to do with it is to violate that person's thoughts. We are not psychic and cannot perform 'predictive' acts. As tough as it may be to swallow - a crime can only become a crime when committed. Otherwise, everyone who has purchased a gun must be sent to jail for murder before it happens. The whole basis for viewing pornography as a gateway to committing abuse is based on the foolish pretense of predictive punishments for crimes not yet committed. The link between viewing pornography and contributing to it is futile in that we exempt doctors and members of justice because they are viewing it for the 'right' reasons. The argument is that viewing the pornography reminds the victim of the crime inflicted upon them and continues to abuse them. Thusly, whether the pictures are viewed for the right reasons or not - the abuse is continuing to be proliferated/perpetuated. That too, becomes a futile argument. Very well written. Additionally, the prurient interest is key for defining a user’s intent. There are psychosexual exams which can show a well-defined prurient interest. This can help in clarifying whether or not a person would even have an interest in downloading the materials vs. being a victim. Additionally, there is the constitutional protection set forth by our founding fathers known as the freedom of thought. to assume a person has said porn in their personal collection and what they ‘intend’ to do with it is to violate that person’s thoughts. We are not psychic and cannot perform ‘predictive’ acts. As tough as it may be to swallow - a crime can only become a crime when committed. Otherwise, everyone who has purchased a gun must be sent to jail for murder before it happens. The whole basis for viewing pornography as a gateway to committing abuse is based on the foolish pretense of predictive punishments for crimes not yet committed. The link between viewing pornography and contributing to it is futile in that we exempt doctors and members of justice because they are viewing it for the ‘right’ reasons. The argument is that viewing the pornography reminds the victim of the crime inflicted upon them and continues to abuse them. Thusly, whether the pictures are viewed for the right reasons or not - the abuse is continuing to be proliferated/perpetuated. That too, becomes a futile argument.

]]> http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-12319 Josephine B Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:22:44 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-12319 Whoop's :wink: Whoop’s

]]> http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-12312 Geeklawyer Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:53:49 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-12312 Ahem :oops: Ahem

]]> http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-12308 Jenny Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:59:14 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/01/viewing-child-pornography-the-same-as-making-it/#comment-12308 Tsk! Never mind whether I agree with your content or not: "the McAnn’s were not holy"? McAnn's? I thought you were GeekLawyer, not GeekGrocer!! Tsk! Never mind whether I agree with your content or not: “the McAnn’s were not holy”? McAnn’s? I thought you were GeekLawyer, not GeekGrocer!!

]]>